Are Fully Articulated Hands of Any Advantage in Combat?

[Matti]

Come on, if weapon power in BT even halfway met the energey levels needed to ablate as much armor as it does, the real ground vs ground max range of a PPC would be "visual horizon."

LOS Range in Tactical Operations

[Kit deSummersville]

Come on, if weapon power in BT even halfway met the energey levels needed to ablate as much armor as it does, the real ground vs ground max range of a PPC would be "visual horizon."

-Jackmc

As someone who actually works with particle accelerators, I'm going to disagree.

[Jackmc]

We played our games on a 4'x8' map,

Which again is only an area a little under 3 sq miles. 

We used to use Peter Del orto's "Age of Ares" mod for BT Where most wepaons ranges were multipled by 10 and we used USGA quadrangle maps which were covered about 50 sq. miles of territory.  There was virtually no mech vs mech melee combat except when someone didn't send in conventional elements to scout out urban terrain. 

-Jackmc

[Jackmc]

As someone who actually works with particle accelerators, I'm going to disagree.

Sweet.  Neutral or charged particle?  Can you give me some good research links or paper titles?  I still have full access to my uni's reserach databases so I can get most published works with just the title and an author. 

-Jackmc 

[MysterYvil]

Which again is only an area a little under 3 sq miles. 

We used to use Peter Del orto's "Age of Ares" mod for BT Where most wepaons ranges were multipled by 10 and we used USGA quadrangle maps which were covered about 50 sq. miles of territory.  There was virtually no mech vs mech melee combat except when someone didn't send in conventional elements to scout out urban terrain. 

-Jackmc

In that case, you weren't playing BT at all.

IIRC, in the BT universe weapon ranges were limited by targeting systems, not by the "ranges" of (pseudo-scientific) weaponry.

[Jackmc]

In that case, you weren't playing BT at all.

I was using it as an example to illustrate how the combination of small mapsize and short weapons range make it happen.   Still if you prefer a straight up BT example, my group was big into minis and thus we played on a plywood table which gave us a main area that was just over 6 x 12 maps sheets though we could, and did, if needed, use a card table to enable any edge to float by another two mapsheets which gave us a total area of 10 x 16 maps sheets or roughly 15 sq miles (we actually mvoed over to the quadrangles because we stil lflet this was too small but had reached the practical limit of how far we coudl reach over a table).  We very seldom saw melee because we used conventional scouting units to discover where the opposing force was.  That vast majority of melee combat we did see was usually a previously hidden mech curbstomping the unfortunate scout vehicle that stumbled too close.     

IIRC, in the BT universe weapon ranges were limited by targeting systems, not by the "ranges" of (pseudo-scientific) weaponry.

Nope, read the rule books.  They specifically mention that weapon ranges are artifically shortened for game play purposes.

-Jackmc

[Kit deSummersville]

Sweet.  Neutral or charged particle?  Can you give me some good research links or paper titles?  I still have full access to my uni's reserach databases so I can get most published works with just the title and an author. 

-Jackmc

Positive Ion cyclotrons in industry. What sort of research are you looking for? Its a rather big field.

[Kit deSummersville]

Nope, read the rule books.  They specifically mention that weapon ranges are artifically shortened for game play purposes.

Which books? Do you have a page number?

[Weirdguy]

Which books? Do you have a page number?

Total Warfare, in one of the first paragraphs in the first chapter.  Sorry, don't have my book with me to be more specific.

Basically it says, "Yeah, we know it doesn't make sense.  Ranges are very short for gameplay purposes, and that was on purpose."

[Martius]

Which books? Do you have a page number?

I think Weirdguy means the paragraph on pg. 36 TW, A note on Scales and the Rules.

[Kit deSummersville]

I think Weirdguy means the paragraph on pg. 36 TW, A note on Scales and the Rules.

Aha. Thanks.

[Nahuris]

Aha. Thanks.

Here's the issue that has come up with battletech time and again over the last 25 years.....
There have been a large number of "reasons" but the main reason for the short ranges in battletech is because it is battletech, not artillerytech.
These questions about range usually came up along with the questions as to why your targeting system cannot aim the medium laser, and small laser, mounted on the same arm, and fired together, equally well at 60 meters? (short for the mlas, medium range for the slas).....

The long and short was to make it a playable game ----
I've seen suggestions from players that all lasers should have the same range, and if mounted in the same location, should hit the same location --- all weapons in an arm should hit if the to hit roll is made, and all do damage to the same location....
Never mind that if all lasers had the same range, and could group hit like this, every mech in the game would have packs of small lasers, and nothing else mounted.... Large laser, 5 tons, 8 heat / 8 damage, or a triple pack of small lasers, same range.... 1.5 tons, 3 heat / 9 damage..... why would you waste time with anything other than small lasers, heat sinks, and armor?

The best bet is just to let the game play, and enjoy it with other people, but leave the "realism" outside of the game --- battletech is no more real than Dungeons & Dragons is real....

Nahuris

[MysterYvil]

I think Weirdguy means the paragraph on pg. 36 TW, A note on Scales and the Rules.

Also from TW, pp. 36:

"BattleTech is a game, not a detailed simulation.  Therefore, the real world must take a back seat to game play--for simplicity, length of play, space required and simple enjoyment."

-and-

"BattleTech has always been about "in-your-face" combat, which works best with closer ranges.  Players are encouraged to remember such abstractions and not get bogged dow in real-world mechanics and physics.  Just enjoy the game!"

Which puts us right back to the question asked in this thread- why include or omit hand actuators, in terms of BattleTech as it is written and played?   ;D

[Nahuris]

Also from TW, pp. 36:

"BattleTech is a game, not a detailed simulation.  Therefore, the real world must take a back seat to game play--for simplicity, length of play, space required and simple enjoyment."

-and-

"BattleTech has always been about "in-your-face" combat, which works best with closer ranges.  Players are encouraged to remember such abstractions and not get bogged dow in real-world mechanics and physics.  Just enjoy the game!"

Which puts us right back to the question asked in this thread- why include or omit hand actuators, in terms of BattleTech as it is written and played?   ;D

Hand to hand combat, use of improvised clubs, and the ability to steal stuff on raides..... plus the occasional civil duty to keep the populace paying taxes for more mechs.

Nahuris

[Jackmc]

Positive Ion cyclotrons in industry. What sort of research are you looking for? Its a rather big field.

I'd love to get ahold of any of the stuff from the SDI research but I always figured most of that was classified. 

-Jackmc